Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 94951

April 22, 1991

APEX MINING COMPANY, INC., petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SINCLITICA
CANDIDO, respondents.
Bernabe B. Alabastro for petitioner.
Angel Fernandez for private respondent.

GANCAYCO, J.:
Is the househelper in the staff houses of an industrial company a domestic helper or a regular
employee of the said firm? This is the novel issue raised in this petition.
Private respondent Sinclita Candida was employed by petitioner Apex Mining Company, Inc. on
May 18, 1973 to perform laundry services at its staff house located at Masara, Maco, Davao del
Norte. In the beginning, she was paid on a piece rate basis. However, on January 17, 1982, she
was paid on a monthly basis at P250.00 a month which was ultimately increased to P575.00 a
month.
On December 18, 1987, while she was attending to her assigned task and she was hanging her
laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her back on a stone. She reported the accident to her
immediate supervisor Mila de la Rosa and to the personnel officer, Florendo D. Asirit. As a result
of the accident she was not able to continue with her work. She was permitted to go on leave for
medication. De la Rosa offered her the amount of P 2,000.00 which was eventually increased to
P5,000.00 to persuade her to quit her job, but she refused the offer and preferred to return to
work. Petitioner did not allow her to return to work and dismissed her on February 4, 1988.
On March 11, 1988, private respondent filed a request for assistance with the Department of
Labor and Employment. After the parties submitted their position papers as required by the labor
arbiter assigned to the case on August 24, 1988 the latter rendered a decision, the dispositive part
of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, Conformably With The Foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering

the respondent, Apex Mining Company, Inc., Masara, Davao del Norte, to pay the
complainant, to wit:
1 Salary
Differential P16,289.20
2. Emergency Living
Allowance 12,430.00
3. 13th Month Pay
Differential 1,322.32
4. Separation Pay
(One-month for
every year of
service [1973-19881) 25,119.30
or in the total of FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE PESOS
AND 42/100 (P55,161.42).
SO ORDERED.1
Not satisfied therewith, petitioner appealed to the public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), wherein in due course a decision was rendered by the Fifth Division
thereof on July 20, 1989 dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the appealed
decision. A motion for reconsideration thereof was denied in a resolution of the NLRC dated
June 29, 1990.
Hence, the herein petition for review by certiorari, which appopriately should be a special civil
action for certiorari, and which in the interest of justice, is hereby treated as such.2 The main
thrust of the petition is that private respondent should be treated as a mere househelper or
domestic servant and not as a regular employee of petitioner.
The petition is devoid of merit.
Under Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended, the terms "househelper"
or "domestic servant" are defined as follows:

The term "househelper" as used herein is synonymous to the term "domestic servant" and
shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders services in and about the
employer's home and which services are usually necessary or desirable for the
maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort
and enjoyment of the employer's family.3
The foregoing definition clearly contemplates such househelper or domestic servant who is
employed in the employer's home to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment
of the employer's family. Such definition covers family drivers, domestic servants, laundry
women, yayas, gardeners, houseboys and other similar househelps.
The definition cannot be interpreted to include househelp or laundrywomen working in
staffhouses of a company, like petitioner who attends to the needs of the company's guest and
other persons availing of said facilities. By the same token, it cannot be considered to extend to
then driver, houseboy, or gardener exclusively working in the company, the staffhouses and its
premises. They may not be considered as within the meaning of a "househelper" or "domestic
servant" as above-defined by law.
The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of
said employer. While it may be true that the nature of the work of a househelper, domestic
servant or laundrywoman in a home or in a company staffhouse may be similar in nature, the
difference in their circumstances is that in the former instance they are actually serving the
family while in the latter case, whether it is a corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in
business or industry or any other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being rendered in the
staffhouses or within the premises of the business of the employer. In such instance, they are
employees of the company or employer in the business concerned entitled to the privileges of a
regular employee.
Petitioner contends that it is only when the househelper or domestic servant is assigned to certain
aspects of the business of the employer that such househelper or domestic servant may be
considered as such as employee. The Court finds no merit in making any such distinction. The
mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working within the premises of the business
of the employer and in relation to or in connection with its business, as in its staffhouses for its
guest or even for its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such househelper or
domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee of the employer and not as a
mere family househelper or domestic servant as contemplated in Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3
of the Labor Code, as amended.
Petitioner denies having illegally dismissed private respondent and maintains that respondent
abandoned her work.1wphi1 This argument notwithstanding, there is enough evidence to show
that because of an accident which took place while private respondent was performing her
laundry services, she was not able to work and was ultimately separated from the service. She is,
therefore, entitled to appropriate relief as a regular employee of petitioner. Inasmuch as private
respondent appears not to be interested in returning to her work for valid reasons, the payment of
separation pay to her is in order.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the appealed decision and resolution of public
respondent NLRC are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

SYLLABUS

1.
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; HOUSEHELPER; DEFINED.
The term `househelper as used herein is synonymous to the term `domestic
servant and shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders
services in and about the employers home and which services are usually
necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers
exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employers family.

2.
ID.; ID.; ID.; PERSONS COVERED. The foregoing definition clearly
contemplates such househelper or domestic servant who is employed in the
employers home to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of
the employers family. Such definition covers family drivers, domestic servants,
laundry women, yayas, gardeners, houseboys and other similar househelps.

3.
ID.; ID.; ID.; PERSONS WORKING IN STAFFHOUSES OF A COMPANY, BEYOND
THE SCOPE. The definition cannot be interpreted to include househelp or
laundrywoman working in staffhouses of a company, like petitioner who attends to
the needs of the companys guests and other persons availing of said facilities. By
the same token, it cannot be considered to extend to the driver, houseboy, or
gardener exclusively working in the company, the staffhouses and its premises.
They may not be considered as within the meaning of a "househelper" or "domestic
servant" as above-defined by law.

4.
ID.; ID.; ID.; CRITERIA. The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment
of the family of the employer in the home of said employer. While it may be true
that the nature of the work of a househelper, domestic servant or laundrywoman in
a home or in a company staffhouse may be similar in nature, the difference in their

circumstances is that in the former instance they are actually serving the family
while in the latter case, whether it is a corporation or a single proprietorship
engaged in business or industry or any other agricultural or similar pursuit, service
is being rendered in the staffhouses or within the premises of the business of the
employer. In such instance, they are employees of the company or employer in the
business concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular employee.

5.
ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSIDERED A REGULAR EMPLOYEE WHEN WORKING WITHIN
THE PREMISES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND IN RELATION TO OR IN
CONNECTION WITH ITS BUSINESS. The mere fact that the househelper or
domestic servant is working within the premises of the business of the employer
and in relation to or in connection with its business, as in its staffhouses for its
guests or even for its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such
househelper or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee
of the employer and not as a mere family househelper or domestic servant as
contemplated in Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended.

6.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY WHEN ILLEGALLY DISMISSED;
CASE AT BAR. Because of an accident which took place while private respondent
was performing her laundry services, she was not able to work and was ultimately
separated from the service. She is, therefore entitled to appropriate relief as a
regular employee of petitioner. Inasmuch as private respondent appears not to be
interested in returning to her work for valid reasons, the payment of separation pay
to her is in order.

FACTS:

Private respondent Sinclita Candida was employed by petitioner Apex Mining

Company, Inc toperform laundry services at its staff house.

n !ecember "#, "$#%, while she was attending to her assigned tas& and she was
hanging herlaundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her bac& on a stone. As a
result of the accident she wasnot able to continue with her wor&. She was permitted
to go on leave for medication.

!e la 'osa offered her the amount of P (,))).)) which was eventually increased to
P*,))).)) topersuade her to +uit her ob, but she refused the offer and preferred to
return to wor&.

Petitioner did not allow her to return to wor& and dismissed her on -ebruary ,
"$##.

Private respondent filed a re+uest for assistance with the !epartment of /abor and
0mployment, which the latter rendered its !ecision by ordering the Apex Mining Co.
to pay Candida the totalamount of P**,"1".( for salary differential, emergency
living allowance, "2th month paydifferential and separation pay.

Petitioner appealed the case before the 3/'C, which was subse+uently dismissed for
lac& ofmerit.
ISSUE:

4hether or not the private respondent should be treated as househelper or domestic

servant or aregular employee.
HELD:

5nder 'ule 6III, Section l7b8, 9oo& 2 of the /abor Code, as amended, the term
:househelper: asused herein is synonymous to the term :domestic servant: and shall
refer to any person, whethermale or female, who renders services in and about the
employer;s home and which services areusually necessary or desirable for the
maintenance and enoyment thereof, and ministersexclusively to the personal
comfort and enoyment of the employer;s family.

<he definition cannot be interpreted to include househelper or laundrywomen

wor&ing instaffhouses of a company, li&e private respondent who attends to the
needs of the company;sguest and other persons availing of said facilities.

<he mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is wor&ing within the
premises of thebusiness of the employer and in relation to or in connection with its

business, as in its staffhousesfor its guest or even for its officers and employees,
warrants the conclusion that such househelperor domestic servant is and should be
considered as a regular employee.4=0'0-'0, the petition is !ISMISS0! and the
appealed decision and resolution of public respondent3/'C are hereby A--I'M0!. 3o
pronouncement as to costs